Stolt Offshore Ltd v. Fraser [2003] UKEAT 0041_02_2602 (26 February 2003)

Stolt Offshore Ltd v. Fraser [2003] UKEAT 0041_02_2602 (26 February 2003)

There is no legal inconsistency in issuing a warning for a period longer than the fixed term of a contract if the original contract permits it. Upon renewal, the employer is entitled to assume continuing effect of such warnings without explicit notice, and the dismissal was fair.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 0041_02_2602
Parties
Appellant: Stolt; Respondent: Mr Fraser
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
26 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Fixed Term Contracts, Disciplinary Procedures, Unfair Dismissal
Employment Law Fixed Term Contracts Disciplinary Procedures Unfair Dismissal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stolt

Appellant

Mr Fraser

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a final written warning issued for 24 months can remain effective beyond the term of a 12-month fixed contract upon renewal
  2. 2 Whether the employer must specifically draw the employee's attention to the continuing warning upon contract renewal

Ratio Decidendi

There is no legal inconsistency in issuing a warning for a period longer than the fixed term of a contract if the original contract permits it. Upon renewal, the employer is entitled to assume continuing effect of such warnings without explicit notice, and the dismissal was fair.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • decision of the Employment Tribunal quashed
  • finding that the dismissal effected by the employer was fair